In message . com,
Boltar writes

I've not heard of the Victoria Line incident. Did not the other
(Piccadilly) driver get prosecuted?

Yes, word at work is that he went to jail for Endangering Passenger's
Safety or somesuch.

Seems a bit harsh given that a few years back a northern line train
went backwards when the driver dozed off and AFAIK nothing much
happened to him. That incident would have put the passengers in far
more danger because of the trips not working in reverse than the
piccadilly incident would have.

I think purposely defeating safety equipment is treated a bit more
seriously. Was there ever a definitive answer to the Northern line
incident?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:19:50 -0800, Boltar
wrote:



Seems a bit harsh given that a few years back a northern line train
went backwards when the driver dozed off and AFAIK nothing much
happened to him. That incident would have put the passengers in far
more danger because of the trips not working in reverse than the
piccadilly incident would have.

B2003

Boltar,

You fascinate me. My earliest memories of you are being very critical
of LUL about delays and so on - now you are one of the most
knowledgeable posters here. You still criticise when appropriate, but
not from a position of ignorance - good for you.

Just don't go native, whatever you do!

On Nov 4, 5:15 pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
In message ,
writes

Is that actually possible, even if he did hang his bag on the CTBC?

Used to be before they redesigned the console (a cause of the incident
in question)

Based on what I know about the controllers on 73Ts, I would think that
airbrakes would release after the driver kicked the door shut. But I did not
think that the motors would engage and the train would take off because the
driver would have to move the controller at least two positions to get to
shunt.

The TBC was left in a motoring position - so it motored!

How would the train have stopped at Holloway Road anyway, by being tripped
at the starter?

Caught up to the train in front and was tripped on the station starter.


So ... he was about to start off and then realised that he couldn't
because a door hadn't shut properly, so the controller was in the "go"
position (I don't know any details of driving).

Would resetting the controller before getting out actually be more
effort than finding something to hang on it? That's the bit I don't
understand.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Nov, 20:48, Mizter T wrote:
Wonder if any of the Central line drivers might like to try doing
this?!

I read a story online somewhere (can't find it now) about a Victoria
Line driver getting out of his train when stuck at a red signal, but
without deactivating the ATO. As soon as the signal cleared, the train
restarted itself, narrowly missing him.

So Vic trains under ATO don't need a hand on a dead man's handle? This i
did not know. That seems like a funny decision.

tom

--
In-jokes for out-casts

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Nov, 20:48, Mizter T wrote:
Wonder if any of the Central line drivers might like to try doing
this?!

I read a story online somewhere (can't find it now) about a
Victoria Line driver getting out of his train when stuck at a red
signal, but without deactivating the ATO. As soon as the signal
cleared, the train restarted itself, narrowly missing him.

So Vic trains under ATO don't need a hand on a dead man's handle?
This i did not know. That seems like a funny decision.

No it's not. If you had a dead man's handle on the Vic and the driver
had a heart attack, the train would stop in the tunnel with nobody on
board able to radio for assistance or talk to the passengers. Without a
dead man's handle, the ATO would drive the train *safely* to the next
station where the driver and passengers could more easily and quickly be
attended to. Which would you prefer?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

So Vic trains under ATO don't need a hand on a dead man's handle?
This i did not know. That seems like a funny decision.

I think the point was that a carefully placed bag would do.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"MIG" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 4, 5:15 pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
In message ,
writes

Is that actually possible, even if he did hang his bag on the CTBC?

Used to be before they redesigned the console (a cause of the incident
in question)

Based on what I know about the controllers on 73Ts, I would think that
airbrakes would release after the driver kicked the door shut. But I did
not
think that the motors would engage and the train would take off because
the
driver would have to move the controller at least two positions to get
to
shunt.

The TBC was left in a motoring position - so it motored!

How would the train have stopped at Holloway Road anyway, by being
tripped
at the starter?

Caught up to the train in front and was tripped on the station starter.


So ... he was about to start off and then realised that he couldn't
because a door hadn't shut properly, so the controller was in the "go"
position (I don't know any details of driving).

Would resetting the controller before getting out actually be more
effort than finding something to hang on it? That's the bit I don't
understand.

As far as is known, the driver habitually hung his bag from the CTBC to
avoid having to hold it down himself, the bag had most likely been hanging
on the CTBC since he had got on the train. When he let go of the CTBC this
also had the effect of pulling the CTBC into a motoring position meaning
that he only needed to touch it when he needed to brake coming into a
station. It was this blatant disregard for safety that got him sacked and
prosecuted. He left the cab to give a door on the leading car some
encouragement thinking that with the cab door open the cab door interlock
would prevent the train from moving. There are two versions of the story
from this point, V1 says that the cab door interlock was defective and
although the cut out switch was in the cut in position, when the passenger
door interlock made, the train motored off without him. V2 says that he
simply didn't notice that someone had operated the cab door cut out switch
to the cut out position with the same result once the passenger door
interlock made.

--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:13:55 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
So Vic trains under ATO don't need a hand on a dead man's handle?
This i did not know. That seems like a funny decision.

No it's not. If you had a dead man's handle on the Vic and the driver
had a heart attack, the train would stop in the tunnel with nobody on
board able to radio for assistance or talk to the passengers.

Like on every other line, I presume?

On Nov 4, 7:49 pm, wrote:
You fascinate me. My earliest memories of you are being very critical
of LUL about delays and so on - now you are one of the most
knowledgeable posters here. You still criticise when appropriate, but

I am? When did that happen?! The only reason I've stopped moaning
so much about the tube is that I recently got a job where I can avoid
having to use it altogether and I'm much less stressed because of
that.

not from a position of ignorance - good for you.

Just don't go native, whatever you do!

No chance , I'm happy to just sit under my bridge and taking the
occasional potshot at passing posts

B2003

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

So Vic trains under ATO don't need a hand on a dead man's handle?
This i did not know. That seems like a funny decision.

I think the point was that a carefully placed bag would do.

That was the piccadilly line incident.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash